alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Unify Corporation (the “Registrant”) onForm 10-Q for the quarter ended October 31, 2003, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, PeterJ. DiCorti, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, do hereby certify inaccordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:

 

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirementsof  Section 13(a) orSection 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

 

(2) the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Registrant.

 

 
| Dated:  December 9,2003 | /s/  PETER J. DICORTI    |
|------------------------------|--------------------------|
|                         | Peter  J. DiCorti        |
|                         | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

 

*A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging,or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within theelectronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, hasbeen provided to Unify Corporation and will be retained by Unify Corporationand furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.*

 

1

----
# C_2020329EN.01001004.xml

| 5.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/10

---

Order of the President of the Court of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha — Spain) — DX v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Toledo

(Case C-549/19) (1)

(2020/C 329/18)

Language of the case: Spanish

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 372, 4.11.2019.

---
# C_2020137EN.01002701.xml

| 27.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 137/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 137/27

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Ilfov — Romania) — NL v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București

(Case C-679/19) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Controls of cash entering or leaving the European Union - Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 - Scope - Articles 63 and 65 TFEU - Free movement of capital - Transport of large amounts of cash entering or leaving the territory of a Member State - Obligation to declare - Sanctions - Fine and confiscation for the benefit of the State of an undeclared sum in excess of 10 000 euros - Proportionality)

(2020/C 137/36)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Ilfov

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: NL

Defendant: Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București

Operative part of the order

Articles 63 and 65 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding the rules of a Member State which, for the purpose of sanctioning the failure of the obligation to declare large sums of cash entering or leaving the territory of that State provides, in addition to the imposition of an administrative fine, for the confiscation for the benefit of the State an undeclared sum in excess of 10 000 euros.

---

(1)  OJ C 423, 17.12.2019

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 113 (Thursday, July 26, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5295]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                             SEQUESTRATION

  (Mr. WITTMAN asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Speaker, Congress faces looming deadlines at the end 
of this year, set to take effect in the first days of 2013. Just as we 
ring in a new year with a renewed sense of optimism, if Congress does 
not act, looming defense cuts will cripple our military and this 
Nation.
  Our military will be forced to cut an additional 10 percent from its 
budgets; an additional 10 percent of resources supporting our troops 
deployed overseas, fighting for our freedoms; an additional 10 percent 
of budgets supporting new technologies, training, and ships already 
lacking maintenance and which are behind schedule; an additional 10 
percent of our national security.
  While the House passed, and I proudly supported, legislation in May 
to avert these cuts, action is still needed by the Senate and the 
administration.
  Why does Congress continue to wait? Why does Congress procrastinate 
on an issue so pressing and so important to this Nation? Who will 
answer the call?
  Leaving this issue to the last minute is irresponsible, and failure 
is not an option. I urge the leaders of this Nation to stop the delay.

                          ____________________
```
#### UNITED STATES of America v. Elvin Ulises DIAZ HERNANDEZ, et al., Defendants

CRIMINAL NO. JKB-16-0259

United States District Court, D. Maryland.

Signed October 5, 2017

Kenneth Sutherland Clark, Clinton Jacob Fuchs, Office of the United, States Attorney, Baltimore, MD,- Catherine Kuo Dick, U.S. Dept, of Justice, Washington, DC, for United States of America

Harry J. Trainor, Jr., Trainor Billman Bennett and Milko LLP, Annapolis, MD, Richard C. Bittner, Law Office of Richard C., Bitjtner, Glen Burnie, MD, Teresa Whalen, Law- Office of Teresa Whalen, Silver Spring, MD, Anthony Douglas-Martin, Anthony D. Martin PC, Greenbelt, MD, William B. Purpura, Jr., Law Office of William B. Purpura, Baltimore, MD, for Defendants.

ORDER

James K. Bredar, United States District Judge '

Pending before thé Court is the Government’s Motion to Amend Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 96.) The Court has considered it and Defendant Elvin Diaz-Hernandez’s opposition (ECF No. 97). The ‘ Court will grant the motion to extend the deadline from October 6, 2017, until November 6, 2017, for the Government; to provide notice of its intention to seek the death penalty pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3593(a) . (requiring Government. to file death-penalty notice “a reasonable time before the trial”). The Court has, the inherent authority to set such a deadline *640and to enforce it, as it will surely do in this case. *See United States v. Slone,*969 F.Supp.2d 830, 838 (E.D. Ky. 2013) (court has authority to set deadline for notice); *United States v. Tsarnaev,*Crim. No. 13-10200-GAO, 2013 WL 5701582, at *2 (D. Mass. Oct. 18, 2013) (same).

The trial in this case is set to begin March 26, 2018 (Am. Sched. Order, ECF No. 89), which is 140 days after the new, extended deadline. In the Court’s judgment, any time less than that is insufficient for the Defendants to prepare for trial of a case in which the death penalty is at issue. Consequently, the Court has no intention to further extend this important deadline.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Government’s Motion to Amend Scheduling Order (ECF No. 96) IS GRANTED and the Government SHALL FILE its notice of intention to seek the death penalty in this case no later than November 6,2017.
NO. 07-04-0015-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

JANUARY 16, 2004

______________________________

IN RE GALE GREENSTREET AND JUDY LAWRENCE AS CO-TRUSTEES

OF THE A. M. & J., COLDWATER, AND RED RIVER TRUSTS, RELATORS

_______________________________

Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

Gale Greenstreet and Judy Lawrence, as Co-Trustees, relators, proceeding pro se,

commenced this original proceeding by filing a “Complaint for an Emergency Preliminary

Injunction and Permanent Injunctive Relief [And Damages].” We dismiss the complaint for

want of jurisdiction. 

Relators reference an opinion and judgment issued by this Court on March 15,

1995, in Cause Number 07-94-0178-CV and request that we enforce that judgment.

However, the judgment of an appellate court is enforced at the trial court level after the

mandate from the appellate court is received by the trial court clerk and the process of

enforcing the judgment commences. Mandate in our 1995 decision was issued on May
2

24, 1995. Relators also request that we grant an emergency preliminary injunction and a

permanent injunction.

 The jurisdiction of a court of appeals to grant injunctive relief is limited to preserving

or enforcing its jurisdiction over the merits of a pending appeal and not for the purpose of

granting relief on equitable grounds nor for protecting a litigant. See Pace v. McEwen, 604

S.W.2d 231, 233 (Tex.Civ.App.–San Antonio 1980, no writ); see also Nelson v. Blanco

Independent School District, 386 S.W.2d 636, 637 (Tex.Civ.App.–Austin 1965, no writ).

Because our mandate in the referenced proceeding was issued in 1995, we have no

jurisdiction to grant the relief requested. 

Accordingly, relators’ complaint is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Per Curiam
**EXHIBIT 32.1****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906****OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**     In connection with the Annual Report of Giant Industries, Inc.(“Giant”) on Form 10-K for the year endingDecember 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Fred L. Holliger, Chief Executive Officer of Giant, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:     (a) The Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and     (b) The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of Giant. By:     /s/ Fred L. Holliger           Name: Fred L. Holliger Title:    Chief Executive OfficerDate: March 16, 2005
4
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

WILLIAM STANCIL,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 55 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 7th day of May, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Gehl
Company's consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 1999 and consolidated
statements of income for the twelve month period ended December 31, 1999 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                            1010
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    93888<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                      5952
<INVENTORY>                                      35206
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                125783
<PP&E>                                           81967
<DEPRECIATION>                                   44939
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  194160
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            56299
<BONDS>                                          31097<F2>
<COMMON>                                           565
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                       96859
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    194160
<SALES>                                         285822
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                285822
<CGS>                                           205465
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   205465
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                3083
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  31294
<INCOME-TAX>                                     11109
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              20185
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     20185
<EPS-BASIC>                                     3.29<F3>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.17
<FN>
<F1>Company presents receivables on a net basis in compliance with Article 10
of Regulation S-X.
<F2>Includes all non-current portion of debt obligations.
<F3>The EPS under the "EPS-Primary" tag represents Basic Earnings Per Share.
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### Commonwealth ex rel. Billman *v.*Smith, Warden.

April 30, 1943:

Opinion by

Keller, P. J.,

Petitioner, Edward Billman, was jointly indicted with one Stehlik in the Court of Oyer and Terminer of Philadelphia County, to No, 1183 September Sessions 1940, for burglary. He was tried on October 3, 1940 and found guilty and was sentenced the same day to separate and solitary confinement in the Eastern State Penitentiary for not less than two and a half years nor more than five years. Petitioner had a criminal record, and at the time of sentence, in reply to questions of the trial judge, he stated that he had been out of the penitentiary for about a year — since September 28, 1939 — and still had five years “back time” to serve. *326In sentencing him the trial judge said: *“Do your bach time*and two and a half to five at the end of it.”

Later in the day it developed' that Billman, shortly before committing the burglary, had completed a maximum sentence of six years in the Eastern State Penitentiary, but soon thereafter had been placed on “probation”, immediately following a 'sentence of five years in the Berks County Prison. Under the Act of June 19,1911, P. L. 1055, sec. 10, as amended by Act of June 22, 1931, P. L. 862, as he was sentenced for burglary to a place of confinement other than the Berks County Prison, his sentence to the penitentiary had to begin at once. Accordingly, the next day, the court entered the following order: “October 4, 1940 — Sentence as to Bill-man reconsidered in open court and held under advisement.” A new term of court — October Sessions 1940— began on October T, 1940. On October 11, 1940, the court *formally*vacated the sentence imposed on October 3, and imposed on him a sentence of not less than five years nor more than ten years imprisonment in the penitentiary, to begin as of October 3, 1940;

Petitioner claims that this was illegal, and that the sentence of two and a half to five years is the only valid sentence, and that he is now eligible for parole, having served the minimum sentence. This position would be correct if the action of the court on October 4, 1940, *reconsidering*the sentence and holding the matter of sentence under advisement — which took place during the September Sessions at which he was sentenced — did not amount to a vacation of the sentence; for it is well settled that a court cannot increase or add to a sentence after the term at which it was imposed. !

We are of opinion, however, that the order of the court of October 4, 1940 was, in effect, a vacation of the sentence, and as it was entered during the term, it was within the power of the court to vacate it, and im*327pose a more severe sentence at the next term; and that the sentence imposed daring the first few days of the next term was valid. The original error in sentencing him was the result of a misstatement by the prisoner as to his status when the burglary was committed. The subsequent entry of a *formal*order vacating the sentence was surplusage, as the order of October 4 had already set it aside.

The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas J U D G M E N T

HHH Farms , L.L.C., Hartwell Farms, LLC, and Waymon Scott Hartwell , Appellant
No. 06

- 20

- 00068

- CV v. Fannin Bank , Appellee Appeal from the 336th District Court of Fannin County, Tex as (Tr. Ct

. No. CV

- 15

- 42242 ). Opinion delivered by Justice Burgess , Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Stevens participating

. As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find there was partial reversible error in the judgment of the court b elow

. Therefo re, we affirm the trial court’s summary judgment on Fannin’s breach of c ontract c laim s a gai nst H. Farms an d Hartwell. W e reve r se the trial court’s judgment on Fannin ’ s alte r ego and sham claims and re mand those claims to the trial court for resolution by the fact

- finder . Because the trial court’s imposition of joint and seve ral liabi lit y

ne ces sar ily flows fr om Fannin’s a lter eg o a nd s ham cla ims, tha t porti o n of the j u dgment imposing joint and sever a l liability against the Hartwell Parties is likewise reversed

. We reverse the attorney fee award in favor of Fannin and remand t he attorn ey fee cla im to the trial cou rt for

r es olutio n by th e fact

- finde r
. We affir m the t ria l court’s summary judg men t in fa vo r of Fannin on the Ha rtwell Parties’ coun terclaims

. We reverse the summary judgment in favor of American against Fannin. We remand to the tr ial court for f urther p ro ceedings c onsiste nt with t hi s op inion

. We further order that the costs of this appeal be taxed fifty per cent to Hartwell, twe nty

five percent to Fannin, and twenty

- five percent to American.

R ENDERED NOVEMBER 1 2 , 2021 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey , Clerk
# C_2020320EN.01001903.xml

| 28.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/19

---

Order of the President of the Court of 14 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Latte Villafranca Scrl and Others v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA), Regione Veneto

(Case C-464/19) (1)

(2020/C 320/36)

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 357, 21.10.2019.

---
Exhibit 10(r)
 POTASH CORPORATION OF SASKATCHEWAN INC.
 AMENDMENT TO THE
 SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT INCOME PLAN
     6.
    
    The annual retirement benefit payable under the
Supplemental Plan shall be calculated as follows:a.
    
    the sum of i) and ii), where:
 i)
    
    is equal to 2% of the executives
average three highest calendar years earningsmultiplied bythe executives years (including partial years calculated to
the last full month completed) of Continuous Service (as
defined under the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc.
Pension Plan (the Pension Plan)) up to a maximum of 35
years, to the extent that such Continuous Service was
completed before July 1, 2009; andii)
    
    is equal to 2% of the executives
average earnings for the three consecutive calendar years
during which the executives earnings were the highestmultiplied bythe executives years (including partial years calculated to
the last full month completed) of Continuous Service up to a
maximum of 35 years, provided that (A) such Continuous
Service was completed on and after July 1, 2009 and (B) the
sum of the years of Continuous Service taken into




---



##### 



account
under section (a)(i) and this section (a)(ii) does not exceed
35minus
 b.
    
    the annual retirement benefit which can be
provided under the Pension Plan.
  a.
    
    100% of all bonuses paid or payable to the
executive in a calendar year pursuant to the Corporations
annual short-term incentive plan or any similar plan
substituted therefor; provided, however, that for purposes of
paragraph 6(a)(ii) of the Supplemental Plan, the bonus amount
taken into account in calculating earnings shall not exceed the
Executives annual base pay on which such bonus was based
pursuant to the terms of the Corporations annual short-term
incentive plan; and
   POTASH CORPORATION OF
SASKATCHEWAN INC./s/
Barbara Jane IrwinBy:
    /s/ John W. Estey
# C_2019213EN.01008402.xml

| 24.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/84 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/84

---

Order of the General Court of 30 April 2019 — YR v Commission

(Case T-571/18) (1)

(2019/C 213/83)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 408, 12.11.2018.

---
<PAGE>

Certain confidential material contained in this document, marked by brackets, 
has been omitted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange 
Commission pursuant to Rule 24b-2 of the Securities Act of 1934.

                     CONFIDENTIAL LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING

November 1, 1996

To:       Patrick McNallen

From:     John Kaiser


The following summarizes the terms we agreed to for the manufacture of the IOS
system.  These terms modify the April 18, 1996 letter of understanding (the
"April 18 Letter") as well as the final six months of the Initial 8 Month
Forecast, as the latter term is defined in the original contract between our
two companies.

1.   The instrument units for the final six months of the Initial 8 Month
Forecast are modified to be:

          September 1996      [   ] instrument units
          October             [   ]
          November            [   ]
          December            [   ]
          January 1997        [   ]
          February            [   ]

2.   Biocircuits will pay KMC Systems $25,000 after this letter agreement is
finalized.

3.   The December 31, 1997 expiration date of the warrant, as defined in
paragraph 3 of the April 18 Letter, is extended by six months to June 30, 1998.

4.   The dates of December 2-13, 1997, as defined in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of
the April 18 Letter, are now changed to June 2-13, 1998.

5.   The December 31, 1998 date, as defined in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the April
18 Letter, is now changed to June 30, 1999.

6.   The January 1, 1998 date for the possible issuance of 50,000 additional
shares, as contemplated in paragraph 6 of the April 18 


<PAGE>

Letter, is now changed to July 1, 1998 with a June 30, 1999 expiration date.
The market price for determining the exercise price of those shares will be 
defined as the average closing price for the ten trading days prior to 
July 1, 1998.

7.   If the TSH assay is not cleared by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
and launched by Biocircuits on or before January 31, 1997, then the expiration
date of the warrant shall be extended by an additional six months and all dates
in paragraphs 3-6 shall be adjusted accordingly.

8.   All other terms and conditions of the April 18 Letter remain unchanged.


Signed:        /s/ Patrick W. McNallen
               -----------------------
               Patrick W. McNallen
               Vice President/General Manager
               KMC Systems, Inc.

Signed:        /s/ John Kaiser
               ----------------
               John Kaiser
               President & CEO
               Biocircuits Corporation


                            CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUESTED